Colin Kaepernick Sideline Protest...

[Hornsby]

He said God Bless... someone will be offended which will prompt another apology and then the next and the next.....

Doesnt he also have the right to express his opinion? Yes I know he does - The Mariners should have handled it just like the niners did with Kapernick.

Let them say their piece and agree to disagree....

Kneeling peacefully on the sideline vs. calling people animals...quite a difference in protest.

Yes, he has the right to do what he wants, he also, like Kapernick, get's to face the consequenses.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Regarding being judged a racist off a social media posting, I am reminded that "out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks."

[Hodor]

He said God Bless... someone will be offended which will prompt another apology and then the next and the next.....

Doesnt he also have the right to express his opinion? Yes I know he does - The Mariners should have handled it just like the niners did with Kapernick.

Let them say their piece and agree to disagree....

I have to disagree with you here BG. Kapernick has only advocated that people give a serious issue consideration and resolution and has never asked for the process to be violent or degrading.

Clevenger on the other hand was not only denigrating he advocated harmful behavior.

Two completely different situations which merit different responses.

[baldgriff]

I just dont think corporations should be in the business of monitoring what its employees say while outside of work.

[mjl]

I just dont think corporations should be in the business of monitoring what its employees say while outside of work.

why? Especially in the cases where the employee is very strongly tied to the company, what they say outside of work still reflects on the company in terms of PR, which is a rational thing for them to care about.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I just dont think corporations should be in the business of monitoring what its employees say while outside of work.

Are you ok with corporations being able to deny services to the public based on religious beliefs? Denying benefits to their employees based on religious beliefs? Are you in favor of 'Right to Work'?

All of these are also corporate over reach as well.

[baldgriff]

why? Especially in the cases where the employee is very strongly tied to the company, what they say outside of work still reflects on the company in terms of PR, which is a rational thing for them to care about.

What the person says in their personal time is just that - their personal time. Unless there is some contractual obligation where you agree to the monitoring of your twitter or facebook or other social media. When Im on my time - Im on my time.

Buy hey - thats just me.

[Hodor]

What the person says in their personal time is just that - their personal time. Unless there is some contractual obligation where you agree to the monitoring of your twitter or facebook or other social media. When Im on my time - Im on my time.

Buy hey - thats just me.

Most corporations have exactly that. Signed agreements as a term of employment that allows termination because of social media.

I can be fired if I misbehave in another casinos poker room and they contact my boss.

Like it or not, the world is trending towards a more thoughtful environment.

The days of doing and saying whatever you want regardless of the impact are drawing to a close.

This is, in my opinion, why we've seen such an outburst of hateful rhetoric and behavior. Bigots know their way of life is dying and this is their death cry.

[Kevin Seitzer]

In the entertainment business, what you say on social media is a big part of your "work". Every clubhouse has Twitter guidelines posted prominently.

Saying something offensive to a friend in private - not going to be a big deal. Saying something offensive on social media where you are representing your organization - a very big deal.

[baldgriff]

Are you ok with corporations being able to deny services to the public based on religious beliefs? Denying benefits to their employees based on religious beliefs? Are you in favor of 'Right to Work'?

All of these are also corporate over reach as well.

I believe that a corporation can deny services to any person that they choose - for whatever reason they choose to. Businesses ultimately have the option to serve whoever they want. They could choose to not serve me for being bald, that is fine. I would certainly tell all of my friends about the experience. If they make bad decisions and choose not to serve enough people they will eventually go out of business.

Corporations can’t claim to be religious organizations. They may be run by a whole group of Hindu's, Bhuddists, Christians, Doaists or whatever. If they are for profit, they in general should not be considered a religious organization. With that said, Corporations should be able to choose what benefits they plan to provide their employees. If their benefit package is crappy – they will likely have a difficult time attracting employees. If employees choose to leave due to poor benefit packages, they will also go out of business.

I don’t believe that the government should be in the business of compelling businesses to serve potential customers or specify what health care benefits should be offered to employees. In each of these cases, if the business makes bad decisions or non-competitive decisions, they will either go out of business or have to be change and be more competitive in order to remain in business.

To be honest Im not terribly familiar with “Right to Work” laws so I haven’t really thought about it.

[mjl]

What the person says in their personal time is just that - their personal time. Unless there is some contractual obligation where you agree to the monitoring of your twitter or facebook or other social media. When Im on my time - Im on my time.

Buy hey - thats just me.

1) The MLB social media policy (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/down...dia_policy.pdf) section 7 and 8:

7. Displaying or transmitting Content that is derogatory or insensitive to individuals based on race, color, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, disability, or religion, including, but not limited to, slurs, jokes, stereotypes or other inappropriate remarks.
8. Displaying or transmitting Content that constitutes harassment of an individual or group of individuals, or threatens or advocates the use of violence against an individual or group of individuals.

violations of this are handled under the CBA section XII.

2) The reason that works for you is that nobody cares what you say. People care a little bit about what I say because I work at a large company with its own reputational issues. People care a lot about what Clevenger says because he's a very high-profile employee at a company with a lot of value in its public goodwill.

3) There's a difference between having your twitter/fb actively monitored and having something you said there turn into a national news story.

[baldgriff]

Why should I care what the second string catcher or starting first baseman says?

[Hornsby]

I just dont think corporations should be in the business of monitoring what its employees say while outside of work.

They absolutely are, and most make looking at your social profile a condition of employment these days. Anything that reflects badly on their brand or product, they're entitled to do what's necessary to protect it. And having an openly racist employee spewing bile on a twitter account is tantamount to asking to be let go.

I have to watch what I say on my social media, so it doesn't reflect badly on the company. I CAN have political opinions, and of course do, but I'm very careful to keep them clean and above board.

[Hornsby]

Why should I care what the second string catcher or starting first baseman says?

You shouldn't, but many people do...they still look at athletes as role models for themselves, and their children as well. And being that there are only 750 MLB players at a given time, anything that they say is magnified manyfold.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Why should I care what the second string catcher or starting first baseman says?

You didn't find what he said offensive; that's fine. There are a lot of people who did, though. His employer cares a lot about their reputation and perception in the community. They don't make their money only or even mostly by winning ball games. They make their money by connecting people to the stories of the team, which involves a lot of stories of the people that make up the team. If one of those stories is a story of racist hate, you think that makes a lot of people want to connect more or less with the team? Winning ball games is a way to make people want to connect to the team, but having likable and relatable players is also a key component of that.